>> and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting. can you please call the roll? supervisor avalos: present. supervisor campos: present. president chiu: present. supervisor chu: here. supervisor cohen: present. supervisor elsbernd: here. supervisor farrell: present. supervisor kim: here. supervisor mar: here. supervisor mirkarimi: present. supervisor wiener: present. >> all members are present.

president chiu: can you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? [pledge of allegiance] [inaudible conversations] madam car, do we have any communications? >> there are no communications. items one-seven comprise the consent agenda and will be acted on by a single roll call vote unless it is requested to be removed and considered separately. supervisor mirkarimi: four. president chiu: items one through seven without item four. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye.

supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. >> 11 aye's. president chiu: those ordinances are finally passed resolutions adopted. >> amending the police code to have various sections, requiring a handgun to be kept in a locked container or disabled. and prohibiting the sale of enhanced ammunition. supervisor mirkarimi: just added relevance to why this is so important that we are passing today. headline news shows six victims of gun violence, five people killed, a sea lion wounded by gun shots. it underscores the need for

us to stand tall for rational and a measured a gun safety laws when we are challenged by the nra and other gun right advocate groups. it doesn't take away any buddies the second amendment right, we just want our communities safe. president chiu: can we take this item same house and call? this ordinance is finally passed. >> amending the code to create a parks fund for the emergency relief fund and change the administering agency for the homeless find. president chiu: same house, same call. item 9. >> amending the environment code to update the green building design, construction, and operation of city buildings. president chiu: same house, same call. >> the land use and economic

development committee, amending the planning code to create the lombard and scott street housing special use district 3151 through 3155. president chiu: this item needs to be continued to later in the meeting, so we will do that unless somebody has objection. >> from the rules committee without recommendation, amending the campaign government conduct code. the amount of public matching funds. supervisor farrell: we can continue this item from last week because we did not have the supervisors here. i would ask for your support here. president chiu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i will be introducing legislation as an alternative to this proposal. i was going to speak about it at roll call, but i do have

legislation that i will be introducing today. president chiu: any further discussion? supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, mr. president. i was absent at the tail end of the discussion because we had a for alarm fire in the district. i apologize that i wasn't here for the complete betting through the chair. i would ask the general cons ole a couple questions. >> good afternoon, special counsel. supervisor mirkarimi: i understand the aim of what supervisor supervisor farrell -- what supervisor farrell and elsbernd are doing. i am one of the early sponsors

of public financing for the mayoral campaigns. it is a time that we design that legislation, we did so based on a certain level, a trigger level of expenditure in matching donations. if we were to reassess what that level would look like, the 1.475, theoretically adjust the level higher up, what would you suggest as part of that process? is that an automatic disqualification? is that something that doesn't necessarily assist in the arguments that are trying to correct what doesn't need to be corrected? >> it would not have that much effect. the concern that i have is the connection between an outside expenditures and the public

finance. if you change those amounts, eliminating the connections, make whatever changes you wish to make. supervisor mirkarimi: the connection being is not relative to any specific number? >> even if you raise that to a higher number, the burden is on the city to prove that you have a compelling interest.

supervisor mirkarimi: it has not yet assessed by a specific trigger, are we correct? >> it is not one that i have heard. i don't think the ethics commission who serves that proposal. supervisor mirkarimi: that helps beg part of the larger question of potential remedies. many here have been trying to sort through the possibility either in adapting to supreme court ruling or protecting what san francisco has already passed. it is a possible one, correct? >> it is, in light of the

supreme court decision. president chiu: supervisor avalos, will youd efe defer to supervisor farrell? supervisor farrell: raising a cap has nothing to do, except politically speaking, but legally speaking, has nothing to do with wcuring what ails us. >> the city will still be at risk. supervisor farrell: may be something to mitigate an adjustment, just making sure that we have nothing to do with legally speaking, the supreme court's's decision. >> you could conjure up the argument that the chill won't happen, but it is not a very strong argument. supervisor farrell: what i opposed to my colleagues, the idea is to combine -- or are we

waiting on this part of it? the part of it before us exposing us to legal risk? we can take up the other issue when the ethics commission hears it. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. first, let me say that i don't knwo that -- know that having this discussion in open session in terms of the viability, i will be voting against it. i appreciate the reasoning behind it. i think it is important for us to address what the supreme court has decided to. it takes into consideration some of the policy reasons why we have public financing.

>> i look forward to having that discussion and conversation as the matter goes forward. i want to thank supervisor kim and her staff for trying to serve -- comply with the supreme court ruling and taking into account some of the decisions that everything has to be taken into consideration in a way that is responsible. my colleagues indicated the need for us to come forward the proposal as an alternative, and i appreciate the fact that supervisor kim has done that. supervisor mar: thank you. i wanted to thank mark from the city attorney's office for the great advice he's given us.

i support the efforts of supervisors elsbernd and farrell. i wanted to couple that with increasing the spending caps for the mayoral eletions. i will be supportive of supervisor kim and otehrs tohero couple the removing of the trigger with increased spending caps. i think they voted overwhelmingly for campaign finance reform, and that will have efforts to improve our public financing system and make it legally indefensible. -- legally defensible. i appreciate the work of supervisors farrell and elsbernd. supervisor kim: thank you so much. i wnaant to that supervisor elsbernd and farrell.

this was not something that we have been paying attention to. to directly address the question of why waiting to address a supreme court ruling in separate legislation, our office thought it was strong that we have levels of accountability for public financing. including supervisor mirkarimi and many of the advocates that worked on framing that issue. we spent some time doing outreach which is why it took us time to come forward, examining multiple options. it includes supervisor farrell and elsbernd's amendments. exactly as the supreme court ruling had indicated. we want to couple it with other amendments that will continue to address the original intent of public financing without this

incentivizing candidates -- disincentivizing candidates. we also wanted to become a public finance candidate as well. this is something that the ethics director -- thank you for your assistance on this as well. it was a strong position, many of the advocates wanted a full hearing on this legislation. this will now give the community opportunity to give feedback for both the ethics commission and the board of supervisors. supervisor elsbernd: thank you, mr. president, and thank you, supervisor kim, for coming forward with this legislation. the amendment that you are

introducing is exactly what supervisor farrell and i have introduced. i just want to point out a couple of things that perhaps have not been thought through. first, a rule of the board, and a supervisor can divide a question -- any supervisor can divide a question. if the intent of this is to ensure that there are eight votes, let's use me as an example. you will not get me to vote for the supervisorial races. i will divide the question. by not moving forward with the the item today, i will say that we'll need a budget analyst report as well, because this is increasing the cost of government by increasing how much candidates will have.

you are opening up a six-week period where there will absolutely can be a lawsuit and attorney fees. they are now on record saying that you agree with what supervisor farrell has done. presumably you vote for the way that you said you agree. the other piece will fall, but it will all be about increasing the campaign and that -- limit. there are a lot of people sitting up here that are running for reelection next year. the way that it is presented will do a lot more harm for the desire to improve the public financing system because it will look so self-interested for incumbents to raise their limits and couple it with something that everyone else already agreed we are not going to vote for today. if the effort is truly designed to improve the public finance

and strengthen in for the city, what this is doing is really going to sour supervisor mar's point. this will look so self interested, particularly for those of you that are running for office next year. supervisor wiener: i'll be voting for the ordinance today. i think that discussing whether to increase supervisorial spending caps as a worthwhile discussion. having just gone through a raise last year, there is a pretty decent argument that the cap is too low. it is a worthwhile discussion. supervisor kim: i want kim: -- i want to thank supervisor kim for raising the discussion. the two have nothing to do with each other. if we have a part of ordinance

that all we can tell is patently unconstitutional, i don't like that it is. i think the supreme court was wrong, but they've ruled we should repeal it. i will not open ourselves up to a lawsuit that we'll move. we have a duty to do that, in my view. i have not heard any argument about why we should not do that. i would like to take this opportunity to make another change that might be appropriate, but it does not even give any leverage. it is not likely had a chance -- maybe someone disagrees -- of doing well in a lawsuit. we have good representation and would do as well as we could do.

but i do not see why we would not pass this ordinance, eliminate the litigation risk, and then move forward with any other appropriate changes to public financing. supervisor farrell: first of all, if the legislation is as advertised, to piggyback a little bit on what supervisor elsbernd is saying -- if we are only raising taxes for the supervisor races, that is the most self interested cap we could have. what about the mayoral race, or the sheriff's race? look at it as a whole. otherwise, we will degrade the reputation of this board, if we pass what i agree is very self interested legislation about next year's supervisor races, which will affect many on this

board. one thing that drives me crazy about this debate -- this has been from the get go about complying with the lot and the supreme court. we are bound as the board of supervisors by the u.s. supreme court. it is not about protecting the advocates and making sure their voices continue to be heard. that, to me, is interesting and part of the dialogue, but it is not what we are doing here, and i do not know why we are passing legislation that is to protect the advocates. supervisor avalos: along the lines of protecting the advocates, i will say, actually, the effort to create the public financing program came out of the process i feel is important. last week, i was supporting supervisor farrel's amendment because there was an absence of thought for the community that

came together to create a program about what to do about the supreme court decision. i supported the amendment coming forward. since that time, there has been a lot of discussion. i wanted to harken to that discussion and find a way to bring up a new amendment. what i believe supervisor kim is proposing -- i am not sure it is the answer. but i do think it needs to be vetted with a lot of the designers of our public financing program, with whom i worked to find an amendment to harmonize with the board of supervisors was going to do with the mayor's program back in 2007. there has been a process i feel comfortable with. i do appreciate your bringing this forward, supervisor farrell, to answer the

challenges from the supreme court decision, but i will be voting against the amendment, looking for a new version. supervisor kim's is probably a start, and we will be able to assess a new path for the future. supervisor kim: i want to respond to some of the new comments that were made. this was a novel part of the law, put forward in june. many of us were unprepared to answer to the supreme court ruling. i wish we had taken time earlier to get more feedback to this issue. i just want to acknowledge that. the reason we did not address the mayoral race was not because we did not want to, but because we wanted to introduce something today. in the next 30 days, ethics may make a recommendation related to the mayoral race. we wanted something quickly, today.

this allowed us to move forward with at least next year's race. this is not about protecting the advocates. i think it is more about style. for my office, when we write legislation, we do a lot of outreach to our communities, and too many folks who care about the issues we work about. we want to make sure we have support for anything we bring forward to the board. we spent expensive time speaking to folks and coming up with a -- expensive time speaking to folks and coming up with a policy proposal people felt comfortable with. we want to honor process. people really wanted a public backing. they want to come to the board to speak in public comment about this. for me, it is about valuing community input, and honoring the designers and authors of this. if you want to say it is not about whether we support public financing -- i do not know

whether the author's support public financing at all. i do not know whether this is just about the supreme court ruling. i think this is a larger dialogue about the future of public financing. for me, i think it has been an important government reform, bringing more integrity to the electoral process. for me, protecting that is of the utmost importance. more than helping anyone in this room today, i am looking for future candidates that will come out of neighborhoods and running grass-roots campaigns, which this really benefits. it makes sure we have a wider variety of folks who feel they can run for office and represent the communities here in city hall. supervisor cohen: thank you, colleagues, for your comments. i would like to speak to the many members of the public that are here today, to explain what

is happening. the united states supreme court issued a ruling that brought our public finance law out of compliance. the debate you're hearing right now is should we follow the supreme court ruling. if we should not follow the supreme court ruling, what does that mean for san francisco? let me tell you what it means. it exposes us for a lawsuit. do you know who foots the bill for a lawsuit? the people in this room, the taxpayers. i find it frustrating and disingenuous that we have members on the board who do not mind spending taxpayer money to make a point. i understand public financing is important and critical. i worked hard last year. i was a publicly financed candidate. i agree it should be there. but there is a comingling of

issues here. the issue we need to vote on, which we need a vote for, which supervisors elsbernd and farrell put forth, brings us into compliance, so we are following the law. we are not above the law here. there are members using this as a wedge issue to continue to carry the torch and move forward some kind of agenda. it is wrong. the supreme court -- the supreme court has issued a statement that forces us -- our council -- counsil has advised us on what would be right and cost- effective. april through june, we heard debate on the budget. we made severe cuts to service

providers, homeless advocates, adult aid health care centers. we have fewer resources to squander away on a potential lawsuit that is an uphill battle that we cannot win. can you believe this? i hope, for those of you that get up and start making public comment, you take this into consideration, and remember which supervisors are voting on this issue. all we are doing is complying with what the united states supreme court has already brought down. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. i want to agree with a couple of points that were made by supervisors farrell and eslbern -- elsbernd, in terms of the scope of the legislation.

i support what supervisor kim is proposing, but we must have a broad peace of legislation addressing what happens in the mirror -- mayor's race, the sheriff's race, and any others. i will support this, assuming there will be changes were needed. i believe the mayor pay for race is one of them. -- mayor's race is one of them. supervisor chu: i want to think supervisor -- thank supervisor cohen for your comments. i think it is spot on. this issue of us not having a process or not a complete one -- to be honest, the process we went through to have this initial proposal was a public process. it